CDZ How did the Ds lose control of the Ds?

[william the wie]

`
`
I voted for Obama in 2008. I was 24. I also am very much "anti-war." To that extent, I became completely disillusioned with the democratic party and basically became independent by 2010. Now I oppose the democratic/republican duopoly which effectively controls the government and keeps other parties OUT.

That is almost certain to change because politics abhors a vacuum:

D finances and political machines are going to get hit hard because of their ANTI-First Amendment stormtroopers are creating enemies but they will remain the coastal party.

The D states will lose their working class both legal and illegal due to their state finances. which in turn will lose them much of their employment base. those refugees will not be welcomed.

What is certain is that no one is real happy the establishment Ds and Rs.

 

[Windparadox]

That is almost certain to change because politics abhors a vacuum: D finances and political machines are going to get hit hard because of their ANTI-First Amendment stormtroopers are creating enemies but they will remain the coastal party.The D states will lose their working class both legal and illegal due to their state finances. which in turn will lose them much of their employment base. those refugees will not be welcomed. What is certain is that no one is real happy the establishment Ds and Rs.

`
Be that as it may, my beliefs are eclectic, at best; "apolitical" when it comes down to it. I'm not interested in political science. I'm interested in getting our elected officials to actually act in behalf of the people who elected them.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The American pea pull elected Democrat Hillary Clinton president. Trump got the office by an anti-democratic technicality. Many of the red states are severely gerrymandered with Democratic voters counting for significantly less than Republican voters. Hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters are kept from voting by various suppression laws and techniques. It is a falsification of our constitutional democracy but one which is about to be remedied,

The Right Wing voters outnumbered the voters for hillary and jillary. If you think you can change things your way, another equally valid alternative is the automatic runoff.

 

[william the wie]

That is almost certain to change because politics abhors a vacuum: D finances and political machines are going to get hit hard because of their ANTI-First Amendment stormtroopers are creating enemies but they will remain the coastal party.The D states will lose their working class both legal and illegal due to their state finances. which in turn will lose them much of their employment base. those refugees will not be welcomed. What is certain is that no one is real happy the establishment Ds and Rs.

`
Be that as it may, my beliefs are eclectic, at best; "apolitical" when it comes down to it. I'm not interested in political science. I'm interested in getting our elected officials to actually act in behalf of the people who elected them.

That would be nice but don't hold your breath. We have neighbors, allies and enemies and they also have a big vote in what can be done by our elected officials.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

`
`
I voted for Obama in 2008. I was 24. I also am very much "anti-war." To that extent, I became completely disillusioned with the democratic party and basically became independent by 2010. Now I oppose the democratic/republican duopoly which effectively controls the government and keeps other parties OUT.

Lies Get the Floodlights; Truth Hides in the Shadows


That's why the GOPer talk-show nannies never talk about automatic runoff.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trump is going after the Dem base: Illegals, non-living and multiple voters. CA and NY will be in play in 2018.

Yet Obama deported more illegals than any sitting President.....EVER. Based on average monthly deportation under Obama, Trump hasn't even come close. So who are illegals going to vote for?

There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

The frauds vote for whom?

Obama told illegals that voting made them citizens

Lie

FALSE: Obama Encouraged 'Illegal Aliens' to Vote

Of course, Frank is correct.





Transcript:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[Just like you.....a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']


The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

 

[william the wie]

To be more exact Sessions is targeting to get rid of both illegal votes and illegal aliens or a probable 20% of the D base.

 

[Tax Man]

`
`
Excuse me for my naivete, but who is "Ray Goon"?

Sound out the words and you will know.

 

[Windparadox]

Sound out the words and you will know.

`
I see. LOL

 

[Picaro]

To be more exact Sessions is targeting to get rid of both illegal votes and illegal aliens or a probable 20% of the D base.

Illegals are probably 13% or so of the vote in states like Texas and California, and another 10-15% are repeater votes, dead people, and other illegal voters, so yes, 20% -25% of the overall Democratic Party vote; the rest is of course made up of violent racists, traitors, and neurotic sexual deviants, and should be deported.

 

[FA_Q2]

The American pea pull elected Democrat Hillary Clinton president. Trump got the office by an anti-democratic technicality. Many of the red states are severely gerrymandered with Democratic voters counting for significantly less than Republican voters. Hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters are kept from voting by various suppression laws and techniques. It is a falsification of our constitutional democracy but one which is about to be remedied,

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.

The presidential election does not suffer from gerrymandering - that is a problem solely in the HoR. The democrats lost because of their own hubris and putting the only candidate living that could have lost to Trump on the ticket.

 

[Fishlore]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

 

[Valerie]

anarchists and anti American types infiltrated OWS, Bernie Bros, and ANTIFA


Dems needs to keep their eye on the ball and have faith in their basic principles

 

[Fishlore]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

 

[Picaro]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

Only select classes voted in Athens; no slaves or foreign born or the 1st generation offspring of foreign born, either.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

My point was clear - Trump did not win on an anti-democratic technicality. He won based on the fundamentals of the system we use.

 

[mamooth]

Conservatives democrats lose. That's why there are no blue dog Democrats any more.

Liberal Democrats win.

Democrats have lost because too many Democrats have been too conservative. They've allied with Wall Street or local big money interests, instead of working people. Think of Joe Lieberman, a Democrat that conservative adore.

Now, there is the Republican vote fraud, vote suppression, gerrymandering, media rigging, race baiting and xenophobia. But we're talking about problems with Democrats, not the many that Republicans cheat to implement their tyranny of the minority.

Proud liberal democrats win, thus proud liberal democrats terrify conservatives, thus conservatives spit hatred at proud liberals. They wouldn't hate us so much if we weren't a threat.

 

[Mac1958]

White House, House, Senate, Supreme Court, lower courts, 1,000+ seats nationally, and most of these people simply refuse look in the mirror.

The 2016 elections, particularly the court appointments, will have ramifications for decades, and they simply refuse to look in the mirror.

They're in their own little world, thinking they're just too smart for the room.
.

 

[Fishlore]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

My point was clear - Trump did not win on an anti-democratic technicality. He won based on the fundamentals of the system we use.

Democracy is "rule by the 'demos'" that is, the voters. Three million more voters chose Hillary than chose Trump. Trump won in the EC, a voting block in which the number of voters represented by college members varies wildly, with voters in dink states like Wyoming have far more power to elect than voters in states like California. This is not a democratic process. It is an obsolete technicality that dates back to the days before the USA became a nation-state and in which federal government was a mere confederacy of sovereign states.